6 Waltons (Walmart) have more wealth then the bottom 30% of Americans.

[WhipperSnapper]

Thank you for the link to the Businessweek article, "The China Price". It really highlights just how serious of a threat cheap Chinese labor is to our economy and standard of living given our current trade policies. I found this part particularly troublesome:

Meanwhile U.S. companies are no longer investing in much new capacity at home and the ranks of U.S. engineers are thinning.

"There is a myth that the U.S. would remain the knowledge economy and China the sweatshop," says BCG's Hamerling. "Increasingly this is no longer the case."

The exact numbers in terms of wage and price decreases isn't really the issue. You cannot just look at the wages and prices, you have to consider all of the benefits that come from having Americans employed at middle class wages and all of the costs of having them unemployed. Another cost to consider is the long-term environmental cost of manufacturing. Presumably, pollution caused by unregulated foreign factories negatively impact's the planet's environment in various ways. (It'll hurt the Chinese more than us, but atmospheric and water-based pollutants know no borders.)

If American labor is so expensive that Americans cannot possibly be self sufficient, how do you explain the economic prosperity this country enjoyed prior to foreign outsourcing and global labor arbitrage? (Didn't we even have a trade surplus at one time?)

You also need to consider the cost of our trade deficit and how we are paying for all of these foreign-manufactured goods. We're paying for them, not by exchanging goods and services produced by American labor, but by exchanging hard capital assets--business ownership and real estate. This notion that we can somehow magically get something for nothing, allowing us to consume more wealth than we ourselves produce via global labor arbitrage is folly.

Today we're no longer producing the wealth that we are consuming and we are obtaining our consumer goods by exchanging assets and IOUs. Our situation is akin to that of an unemployed person who is draining his savings account, taking out home equity loans, and racking up credit card debt.

Interestingly, while U.S. worker productivity has supposedly increased, the gains of that productivity has gone to the wealthy who own the capital and has not been shared with the lower classes. This is the result of the dramatic increase in the supply of labor caused by our exposure to foreign labor markets. The increasing gaps between the top 5% and the 95% is very much attributable to global labor arbitrage.

Can you come out and make a case to explain how our exposure to global labor arbitrage is beneficial to our economy? Could you explain how a dramatic increase in the supply of labor relative to the amount of capital in the world will not decrease American's wages and standard of living? Why should businesses continue to pay Americans the amount of compensation they paid in the past (in terms of standard of living afforded by a job and purchasing power) when huge amounts of impoverished people in other countries are willing to work for far less?

Cheap electronic and consumer goods might look "cheap", but in the long run trading our capital assets for consumer goods while dismantling our industrial capacity (our ability to produce wealth) will lead to our eventual impoverishment. It's happening right now.

"But...but the Chinese will let us do all of the knowledge-based jobs while they work the dirty factory jobs." Uh, no. They want to do the knowledge-based work to and much of that follows the location of the manufacturing.

 

[dmcowen674]

Thank you for the link to the Businessweek article, "The China Price".

It really highlights just how serious of a threat cheap Chinese labor is to our economy and standard of living given our current trade policies.

You ain't seen nothing yet.

The republican plan is to bring over from China at least 3 million Chinese construction workers (probably closer to 50 million).

 

[blackangst1]

Thank you for the link to the Businessweek article, "The China Price". It really highlights just how serious of a threat cheap Chinese labor is to our economy and standard of living given our current trade policies. I found this part particularly troublesome:

The exact numbers in terms of wage and price decreases isn't really the issue. You cannot just look at the wages and prices, you have to consider all of the benefits that come from having Americans employed at middle class wages and all of the costs of having them unemployed. Another cost to consider is the long-term environmental cost of manufacturing. Presumably, pollution caused by unregulated foreign factories negatively impact's the planet's environment in various ways. (It'll hurt the Chinese more than us, but atmospheric and water-based pollutants know no borders.)

If American labor is so expensive that Americans cannot possibly be self sufficient, how do you explain the economic prosperity this country enjoyed prior to foreign outsourcing and global labor arbitrage? (Didn't we even have a trade surplus at one time?)

You also need to consider the cost of our trade deficit and how we are paying for all of these foreign-manufactured goods. We're paying for them, not by exchanging goods and services produced by American labor, but by exchanging hard capital assets--business ownership and real estate. This notion that we can somehow magically get something for nothing, allowing us to consume more wealth than we ourselves produce via global labor arbitrage is folly.

Today we're no longer producing the wealth that we are consuming and we are obtaining our consumer goods by exchanging assets and IOUs. Our situation is akin to that of an unemployed person who is draining his savings account, taking out home equity loans, and racking up credit card debt.

Interestingly, while U.S. worker productivity has supposedly increased, the gains of that productivity has gone to the wealthy who own the capital and has not been shared with the lower classes. This is the result of the dramatic increase in the supply of labor caused by our exposure to foreign labor markets. The increasing gaps between the top 5% and the 95% is very much attributable to global labor arbitrage.

Im not sure how to take this paragraph, nor do I know what you mean by "has not been shared with the lower classes." Short of calling your hints socialist (which Im purposefully NOT doing) I really dont know what the obligation would be, other than providing a job with prevailing wages, would be. It is absolutely unreasonable to expect a company to pay 20% higher than prevailing wages, just because. Thats not how business is done.

Can you come out and make a case to explain how our exposure to global labor arbitrage is beneficial to our economy? Could you explain how a dramatic increase in the supply of labor relative to the amount of capital in the world will not decrease American's wages and standard of living? Why should businesses continue to pay Americans the amount of compensation they paid in the past (in terms of standard of living afforded by a job and purchasing power) when huge amounts of impoverished people in other countries are willing to work for far less?

Nope, I cant. The fact is, the world economy is just that. This is new territory for every country, not just the US. And obviously a global economy isnt necessarily good for everyone either. Almost every country is fucked right now. Hell...even China is beginning to implode on itself. In the vein of your earlier comment "If American labor is so expensive that Americans cannot possibly be self sufficient, how do you explain the economic prosperity this country enjoyed prior to foreign outsourcing and global labor arbitrage?"...Thats easy...its called isolationism.

Cheap electronic and consumer goods might look "cheap", but in the long run trading our capital assets for consumer goods while dismantling our industrial capacity (our ability to produce wealth) will lead to our eventual impoverishment. It's happening right now.

"But...but the Chinese will let us do all of the knowledge-based jobs while they work the dirty factory jobs." Uh, no. They want to do the knowledge-based work to and much of that follows the location of the manufacturing.

Im not of the camp that a nation must have a large industrial, or manufacturing, base to be successful. That said, the US is the number 2 country for manufacturing worldwide, and we really arent that far behind China. With that said, we cant go back to our pre-globalization economy, and must employ some self-preservation measures to protect ourselves. I think strong tariffs are a good start. Unfortunately, I dont see much support for that, much less from anyone (Republican or Democrat) in government.

 

[RFE]

Im not sure how to take this paragraph, nor do I know what you mean by "has not been shared with the lower classes." Short of calling your hints socialist (which Im purposefully NOT doing) I really dont know what the obligation would be, other than providing a job with prevailing wages, would be. It is absolutely unreasonable to expect a company to pay 20% higher than prevailing wages, just because. Thats not how business is done.



Nope, I cant. The fact is, the world economy is just that. This is new territory for every country, not just the US. And obviously a global economy isnt necessarily good for everyone either. Almost every country is fucked right now. Hell...even China is beginning to implode on itself. In the vein of your earlier comment "If American labor is so expensive that Americans cannot possibly be self sufficient, how do you explain the economic prosperity this country enjoyed prior to foreign outsourcing and global labor arbitrage?"...Thats easy...its called isolationism.



Im not of the camp that a nation must have a large industrial, or manufacturing, base to be successful. That said, the US is the number 2 country for manufacturing worldwide, and we really arent that far behind China. With that said, we cant go back to our pre-globalization economy, and must employ some self-preservation measures to protect ourselves. I think strong tariffs are a good start. Unfortunately, I dont see much support for that, much less from anyone (Republican or Democrat) in government.

Both of you have been making excellent points. IMO, the outsourcing/offshoring issue should be our governments top priority, yet both sides of the aisle pretend that its of no consequence. The people who argue that we freely let this happen and simply adapt are generally the tools who either stand to benefit from offshoring or who feel they have nothing to loose. Arguments that cheaper goods are necessary are full of fail, as the jobs going overseas are the ones that the bottom 30% of Americans could otherwise be doing (employment vs unemployed), and individuals do not need so much crap, anyhow. Increased prices would bring about better choices in spending ones income (assuming their was gainful employment to be had).

Those of you who like the sucking sound of jobs leaving our shores, what do you propose the lower middle class and people in poverty do for employment if manufacturing is so beneath our nation? Also, wouldn't increased employment also increase tax revenue, as well as lower expenditures for our government?

 

[bfdd]

anyone who thought we could stay ahead of the curve of china due to our education and being high tech should kill themselves. backward thinking fucks.

 

[werepossum]

Thank you for the link to the Businessweek article, "The China Price". It really highlights just how serious of a threat cheap Chinese labor is to our economy and standard of living given our current trade policies. I found this part particularly troublesome:

The exact numbers in terms of wage and price decreases isn't really the issue. You cannot just look at the wages and prices, you have to consider all of the benefits that come from having Americans employed at middle class wages and all of the costs of having them unemployed. Another cost to consider is the long-term environmental cost of manufacturing. Presumably, pollution caused by unregulated foreign factories negatively impact's the planet's environment in various ways. (It'll hurt the Chinese more than us, but atmospheric and water-based pollutants know no borders.)

If American labor is so expensive that Americans cannot possibly be self sufficient, how do you explain the economic prosperity this country enjoyed prior to foreign outsourcing and global labor arbitrage? (Didn't we even have a trade surplus at one time?)

You also need to consider the cost of our trade deficit and how we are paying for all of these foreign-manufactured goods. We're paying for them, not by exchanging goods and services produced by American labor, but by exchanging hard capital assets--business ownership and real estate. This notion that we can somehow magically get something for nothing, allowing us to consume more wealth than we ourselves produce via global labor arbitrage is folly.

Today we're no longer producing the wealth that we are consuming and we are obtaining our consumer goods by exchanging assets and IOUs. Our situation is akin to that of an unemployed person who is draining his savings account, taking out home equity loans, and racking up credit card debt.

Interestingly, while U.S. worker productivity has supposedly increased, the gains of that productivity has gone to the wealthy who own the capital and has not been shared with the lower classes. This is the result of the dramatic increase in the supply of labor caused by our exposure to foreign labor markets. The increasing gaps between the top 5% and the 95% is very much attributable to global labor arbitrage.

Can you come out and make a case to explain how our exposure to global labor arbitrage is beneficial to our economy? Could you explain how a dramatic increase in the supply of labor relative to the amount of capital in the world will not decrease American's wages and standard of living? Why should businesses continue to pay Americans the amount of compensation they paid in the past (in terms of standard of living afforded by a job and purchasing power) when huge amounts of impoverished people in other countries are willing to work for far less?

Cheap electronic and consumer goods might look "cheap", but in the long run trading our capital assets for consumer goods while dismantling our industrial capacity (our ability to produce wealth) will lead to our eventual impoverishment. It's happening right now.

"But...but the Chinese will let us do all of the knowledge-based jobs while they work the dirty factory jobs." Uh, no. They want to do the knowledge-based work to and much of that follows the location of the manufacturing.

Very well said. Once manufacturing moves, design engineering must inevitably follow, and eventually design (what to make rather than how best to make it) will follow after that. In a generation we'll face the same situation that India or Vietnam now faces in trying to build up our manufacturing, for we'll have lost our commons.

EDIT: As far as "Interestingly, while U.S. worker productivity has supposedly increased, the gains of that productivity has gone to the wealthy who own the capital and has not been shared with the lower classes", I can take that several ways, but in general anything that reduces the value of labor benefits the resource owner and investor class at the expense of the working class. This includes global arbitrage, illegal immigration (actually all immigration with a net population adder), and increased productivity. The big difference is that the latter two examples increase the overall wealth of a society even if they decrease the lower classes' share of it, whilst global arbitrage increases the wealth of a society only in consumable goods. We get cheap ipods, but we lose stock (i.e. ownership of companies) and investment income. It's a short term gain with a known long term loss, and I agree with RFE that fixing this should be both parties' highest priority.

 

[Steeplerot]

I see no middle class in reality, it is mainly just a bunch of indebted white folks with a entitlement complex riding off their racist past privileges while doing their damndest to work against their own best interests by buying into reactionary corporatist propaganda to pick the bones clean of whats left of the economy. A economy historically that was built in the first place off of slavery an exploitation of everyone else. It is hilarious that they deride others of being lazy too, like the rest of the world does not see through this with half a brain for critical thinking.

 

[blackangst1]

anyone who thought we could stay ahead of the curve of china due to our education and being high tech should kill themselves. backward thinking fucks.

The fact is, China is not that far ahead of the US now, and theyre crumbling faster than we are. Their debt problems are worse than ours. Their environmental issues are worse than ours (by far). The discontent of their growing middle class is worse than ours. Fact is, theyre in prime territory for a huge bubble burst.

 

[Acanthus]

I know what they're doing but what changed to make it so easily done? Other than their sheer size. IIRC, NAFTA started their move to Mexico and to China from there. Is global free(near free) trade the issue?

Yes, it is the issue.

 

[Got Milk]

Trying to not engage in Ad Hominem attacks but those of you who think that amount of wealth disparity is 'okay' are incredibly ill-informed given some of the reasons as to the 'why' you think it is okay. Let me dispel some of the ridiculous rhetoric A.) It is statistically more likely you will die in the SES you were born into in this country. The notion of 'upward mobility' is completely without merit. The Horatio Alger belief is simply that-a belief not backed by facts. B.) If we are indeed a "christian nation" (which is not true but that the right often espouses and uses as a wedge issue) then how could it possibly be Christian that 1.6 million children go hungry in the U.S. each night while a few sit on vast islands of wealth that they could never feasibly spend. It's indefensible from a moral standpoint. C.) The Walton Family has gutted mom & pop enterprises, uses their leverage to get sweet-heart tax breaks (that smaller companies could never get) when purchasing land and building stores, they pay the vast majority of their works not enough to have anything more than the most basic of needs met, and most of their employees are not full-time employees. Further, they fight against ANY attempts to unionize. There is something inherently wrong with a company that amasses such great wealth for a handfull of people without enriching the many multitudes of employees they have. D.) There are numerous studies that indicate vast inequity in countries is horribly troublesome to the economy (for rich and poor), that the wealthy actually amass great wealth when there is a more equitable distribution of wealth) Since the Reagan years we have seen a HUGE distance between the haves and the have nots. As Warren Buffet has said 'it's class warfare and my class is winning'. yet, and yet, we get these right wing (and the left in power are not better) idiots who think that 'trickle down' economics works. It does not. Most recently Romney, Perry, Bachman, and other candidates argue 'dont' tax the job creators' which is code for 'trickle down' and people are buying this argument. Are you kidding me? It is absurd.

Corporations are now people, taxation rates (effective) for the wealthiest of Americans is now between 15-17%, taxation for hedge fund managers is appr. 10%, and irrespective of taxation there is a matter of fairness and it is what Warren Buffet speaks with great wisdom about. If the American people feel the system is no longer fair (because it isn't) then it effects our confidence in our economy and our desire to do those things that have made the country great. In short, this is what he argues - not because he's some wacky but because he truly values capitalism and what it has done for the country historically. but, the system we have had in place since Reagan is absurd and we are only beginning to see the results of this. The Walton Family being just one example.

People better wake up before it is too late and realize our system is dramatically flawed, our system of capitalism is broken as it currently exists. How is it that 40+americans do not have health care? or that 1.6 million Children go hungry each night? How is it that more than 1/3rd of the country lives in absolute poverty. This, the wealthiest country in the history of man does not provide health care for all - instead we have insurance companies and HMO middle-men who are investing in the business of making money off your health. Did you know that 30-70% of every health care dollar does not go to service delivery--it goes to the administration of health care. It's absurd and those of you who think this vast wealth inequality is okay are equally absurd at both a moral and an economic level. It is people who buy into the propoganda and do not think for themselves who are weakening our great country....and now Ron Paul is polling very high in the polls and he wants to privatize everything? Give me a break. The ONLy way to right this ship is to fix our govt., elect people who will advocate for us, and get money out of washington and K-street. If we weaken the govt. while the rich have all the wealth than the rest of us will be left with table-scraps and, in fact, that is what most of the country is left with the past 30-40 years. It doesn't need to be this way. yet as many engage in silly partisan blame game assaults the rich get richer, the powerful become more entrenched in washington, and the rest of us grow weaker with each passing day. our country is now an embarrasment in almost all areas - health care, education, mobility potential, quality of life, hours worked, worker rights, retirement, this list goes on and on...all while our defense budget costs almost 2 billion dollars a day.

 

[Tom]

1.) What evidence do you have that they did or are doing "nothing" to earn or maintain their wealth? Please don't tell me you believe that wealth can't be mismanaged or thrown away.

2.) What is your justification for denying the unalienable right of a parent to pass on their wealth and business (which they have started and worked hard for to make successful) to their off-spring regardless of how much or little work they have done?

/Eagerly waits for the fallacy of the "Fairness" argument to be trotted out.



Wow how kind of you to partly admit that he did work hard for his wealth. /sarcasm



In other words you'd rather see those people who are directly employed as a result of the creation and success of Walmart without a job, thus denying them income and the ability to generate their own wealth and potential success. Gotcha.



This is just fucking stupid and makes no sense at all. You obviously don't understand why and how manufacturers discount their items to retailers. Furthermore if they (Walmart) had payed more for the items they sell/sold in their stores then they would have no ability to compensate for this added cost and still be able to offer lower priced goods and services that the "bottom 30%" could afford.

In essence they would have zero competitive advantage against their rivals for their targeted demographic and thus the cost of those goods and services that they offer would be out of reach of the "bottom 30%" because any increase of price at the manufacturer's end would be translated to the retail side of Walmart's of the business.




Care to be more specific on how exactly Walmart itself has "exploited the environment" any more so then say Costco, Best Buy, Whole Foods, Safeway, etc??



Oh you mean those small town competitors that relied on being the only game in town and over charged their goods and services or worse refused to or were unable adapt to changing consumer trends in manner to ensure the continued loyalty of the consumers? Do you think its the consumers responsibility to prop up a failing business model out of "fairness" or "good intentions"??



Oh please your tripe is the only thing that is flawed. Name me a system that efficiently and accurately allows for scare goods and services to be conveyed those who demand them while being able to accurately ensure that the true cost of those said scare goods and services are appropriately conveyed so as to prevent shortages, rationing, or worse massive waste. On top of raising the standard of living for all those involved without the need for one half the planet to manage the other half in a inefficient manner? Not to mention allowing for individuals to benefit from the knowledge of not only being able to view the cost of success but also the true cost of failure itself in a economic system without having to petition, appeal to or influence bureaucratic governmental committees, self-appointed royalty, etc who may have different agendas that conflict with the desires of the individual?

I am talking about mathmatically proveable flaws, not my political views. A free market assumes all suppliers have the same ability to compete, an equal playing field. But in reality larger suppliers have advantages, including the advantage of having more influence over the rules of the game via political influence.

That's why devices like capital gains taxes can correct some of these flaws, that's the argument for them. And there is no unalienable right to own anything, let alone own things after death. The right to own things is part of our legal system, other than that, it doesn't exist.

Walmart, and others, exploit the enviroment by buying products from countries where the enviromental costs of production are not included in the the price they pay, but are either born by that countries' population, or in some cases spread out to the population of the whole world.

and btw, I'm in favor of capitalism and free markets. But concentration of wealth and power in too few hands is actually not capitalism, it's fiefdoms cloaked as capitalism.

 

[MagickMan]

How were they able to do this? Free trade agreements?

The ones Clinton signed? Irony.

 

[highland145]

Yes, it is the issue.

The ones Clinton signed? Irony.

That's what I thought, x 2.

 

[ky54]

Is it OK to hate Starbucks yet? I don't get the "Hate rich whitey" newsletters anymore.

 

[boochi]

 

[DucatiMonster696]

I am talking about mathmatically proveable flaws, not my political views. A free market assumes all suppliers have the same ability to compete, an equal playing field. But in reality larger suppliers have advantages, including the advantage of having more influence over the rules of the game via political influence.

A truly free market has government playing a minimal role. In a free market system government action is curtailed so as to ensure that it does not altered the playing field so as to create artificial government spawned inefficiencies or inequalities. Furthermore a free market doesn't assume that all suppliers have the same ability to compete only that they will be allowed to compete without the hindrance or support of government to drastically alter the playing field. This solution is ideal because it has been observed from time and memorial that any government action itself in the economy has a ripple effect that creates both intended and unintended consequences for all those who fall under the edicts/mandates/regulations issued by government when it interferes in the market place. In addition the free market system is not one designed to put fourth the fallacy of "fairness" because in order for entities to compete, learn and evolve you must have winners and losers.

Thus you make my point for me as you completely ignore the role and function of big government in the analysis of these "mathematically provable flaws". In fact you even admit and state that it is not until government interferes and alters the playing field that competition is stifled and drastically altered. Thus the "inequalities" you speak of which are in place that give larger market entities an advantage over other smaller entities stem as a direct result of government's expanding role in deciding winners and losers while attempting but failing (via unintended repercussions) to prevent the reality of scarcity and losses. Of which is essential to any free market in order to determine where exactly scare resources should indeed go to meet the appropriate demands for goods and services.

That's why devices like capital gains taxes can correct some of these flaws, that's the argument for them.

Capital gains taxes do not correct market inequalities created by big government. Additionally ballooning the capital gains tax rate would not solve government over spending and it would certainly have the add determent of slowly but surely reducing private sector investment in the economy as investors seek safer harbors for their wealth.

And there is no unalienable right to own anything, let alone own things after death. The right to own things is part of our legal system, other than that, it doesn't exist.

This is nothing more then socialist drivel. The right to own property which a person has attained via legal and law abiding means as a result of the wealth generated by their endeavors is a intrinsic and fundamental aspect of this nation and its underlining legal principles of individual rights since its inception.

Walmart, and others, exploit the enviroment by buying products from countries where the enviromental costs of production are not included in the the price they pay, but are either born by that countries' population, or in some cases spread out to the population of the whole world.

This is a ridicules claim based solely on your opinion and nothing else.

and btw, I'm in favor of capitalism and free markets. But concentration of wealth and power in too few hands is actually not capitalism, it's fiefdoms cloaked as capitalism.

No you are not. In fact it seems you have no understanding about how free markets and capitalism should work or why these concepts are dependent on the protection of individual freedoms which includes the ability to create wealth and pass it onto your future offspring instead of having government (or the church in the old'en days) step and reset the playing field at the determent of those who have achieved a measure of success in life and who wish to ensure that their future generations benefit from their endeavors.

 

[IronWing]

Reinstate the estate tax. The Waltons didn't build a company, their dad did.

 

[Acanthus]

The ones Clinton signed? Irony.

It doesn't matter who did it or what their motivations were at this point.

It needs to be revoked.

P.S. Ronnie opened up trade with China.

 

[Tom]

A truly free market has government playing a minimal role. In a free market system government action is curtailed so as to ensure that it does not altered the playing field so as to create artificial government spawned inefficiencies or inequalities. Furthermore a free market doesn't assume that all suppliers have the same ability to compete only that they will be allowed to compete without the hindrance or support of government to drastically alter the playing field. This solution is ideal because it has been observed from time and memorial that any government action itself in the economy has a ripple effect that creates both intended and unintended consequences for all those who fall under the edicts/mandates/regulations issued by government when it interferes in the market place. In addition the free market system is not one designed to put fourth the fallacy of "fairness" because in order for entities to compete, learn and evolve you must have winners and losers.

Thus you make my point for me as you completely ignore the role and function of big government in the analysis of these "mathematically provable flaws". In fact you even admit and state that it is not until government interferes and alters the playing field that competition is stifled and drastically altered. Thus the "inequalities" you speak of which are in place that give larger market entities an advantage over other smaller entities stem as a direct result of government's expanding role in deciding winners and losers while attempting but failing (via unintended repercussions) to prevent the reality of scarcity and losses. Of which is essential to any free market in order to determine where exactly scare resources should indeed go to meet the appropriate demands for goods and services.






Capital gains taxes do not correct market inequalities created by big government. Additionally ballooning the capital gains tax rate would not solve government over spending and it would certainly have the add determent of slowly but surely reducing private sector investment in the economy as investors seek safer harbors for their wealth.



This is nothing more then socialist drivel. The right to own property which a person has attained via legal and law abiding means as a result of the wealth generated by their endeavors is a intrinsic and fundamental aspect of this nation and its underlining legal principles of individual rights since its inception.



This is a ridicules claim based solely on your opinion and nothing else.



No you are not. In fact it seems you have no understanding about how free markets and capitalism should work or why these concepts are dependent on the protection of individual freedoms which includes the ability to create wealth and pass it onto your future offspring instead of having government (or the church in the old'en days) step in and step in and reset the playing field at the determent of those who have achieved a measure of success in life and who wish to ensure that their future generations benefit from their endeavors.

I don't know where these free markets you describe existed, but it wasn't here on Earth. By far the most successful economies in history, from the Roman Empire, the great Chinese dynastys, and the American model of the 20th century which is what every successful modern economy is based on..none of them are anything like what you described, and all have a great deal of government "interference" as you put it.

You apparently have no idea what government actually is, it isn't the boogie man.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

I don't know where these free markets you describe existed, but it wasn't here on Earth. By far the most successful economies in history, from the Roman Empire, the great Chinese dynastys, and the American model of the 20th century which is what every successful modern economy is based on..none of them are anything like what you described, and all have a great deal of government "interference" as you put it.

I agree Rome and ancient China were not in anyway examples of free markets or even capitalist markets. In addition you state that there are no examples of "Pure Free Markets" in the modern Western world which I agree. However you can't have your cake and eat it by also placing the blame on the "Free Market" which by your own words has not existed in pure sense.

You apparently have no idea what government actually is, it isn't the boogie man.

In relation to the economy it is government action which has via its polices, mandates, regulations, etc created more unintended consequences from seeking to suppress market truths and realities then any other force at play in the economy of our nation. Which is to say that by the time government reacts to the unintended consequences of its actions it does so out of sync with the ever changing pace and speed of the economy.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Free market, like Anarchy, is a nice concept where everyone gets to find out what their true worth is to society and everyone benefits and we all go skipping through fields of daisies hand-in-hand.

Reality is that you get a bunch of people in an open field and tell them "play nice" and you get 300lb linebackers tackling grandma or packs of feral children tearing apart the local shop owner because he did not give them free lollipops.

Everything needs some rules (like many sports) or you do not get, literally, an "even playing field". You let the high schoolers play against the middle schoolers, you not only do not get a fair fight, but the high schoolers cripple anyone coming up in the ranks before they can ever BECOME good enough to compete.



Added note. It is sad when you see the figures come out that people shopped more this year, but the places they shopped at had less national stake. IOW, WalMart was one that showed a significant boost, while Sears did not (and will be closing a bunch of stores as a result).

This "recovery" is just dumping more money OUT of the country.



Question, and this is serious. How can we stem the outflow of cash from this country (and to the "few" rather than the many) WITHOUT significantly harming competition, or the share already earned (in whatever way) by the current leaders?

It is obvious that they will not, en masse, offer their holdings up freely, and that a simple tax or tariff plan would not be an even distribution of weight or adjustment that would bring (at least) an equilibrium to our nations finances.

Doing nothing is not working, and most of the voiced proposals are very sound-byte basic (30 second or less solutions)

What will WORK?

 

[Acanthus]

Free market, like Anarchy, is a nice concept where everyone gets to find out what their true worth is to society and everyone benefits and we all go skipping through fields of daisies hand-in-hand.

Reality is that you get a bunch of people in an open field and tell them "play nice" and you get 300lb linebackers tackling grandma or packs of feral children tearing apart the local shop owner because he did not give them free lollipops.

Everything needs some rules (like many sports) or you do not get, literally, an "even playing field". You let the high schoolers play against the middle schoolers, you not only do not get a fair fight, but the high schoolers cripple anyone coming up in the ranks before they can ever BECOME good enough to compete.



Added note. It is sad when you see the figures come out that people shopped more this year, but the places they shopped at had less national stake. IOW, WalMart was one that showed a significant boost, while Sears did not (and will be closing a bunch of stores as a result).

This "recovery" is just dumping more money OUT of the country.



Question, and this is serious. How can we stem the outflow of cash from this country (and to the "few" rather than the many) WITHOUT significantly harming competition, or the share already earned (in whatever way) by the current leaders?

It is obvious that they will not, en masse, offer their holdings up freely, and that a simple tax or tariff plan would not be an even distribution of weight or adjustment that would bring (at least) an equilibrium to our nations finances.

Doing nothing is not working, and most of the voiced proposals are very sound-byte basic (30 second or less solutions)

What will WORK?

Protectionism from impoverished nations with a standard of living below our own.

Revision of laws such that significant shareholders can be held accountable for the actions of their respective corporations.

Disallow any one person to be on more than one board of directors for a corporation.

Cap executive pay in cash and bonuses, but leave no limit on shares for bonuses. However, require executives to have owned their shares for 24 months before they are allowed to sell them. Do not allow contracts that will circumvent this measure such as using unsellable shares as collateral for loans.

Remove all tax breaks for stupid things like hiring a domestic worker, they do nothing and waste potential revenue.

Remove the capital gains tax. Tax all income as income regardless of the source.

 

[gingermeggs]

I really don't understand the arguments against rich people. They are rich because they or someone they know either did something that a whole lot of people found valuable or had the knowledge and skill to profit from investments. Why exactly would other people have more of a claim to that wealth than them?

What if they robbed people to get it?
Would you have a problem with them then?

What they really know is the best lawyers, political connections and how not to get caught for fraud.
The skill most of them have(in common) is a lack of ethics to hold them back from screwing people, some of them even fucked over their own mothers to get rich.

 

[gingermeggs]

I agree Rome and ancient China were not in anyway examples of free markets or even capitalist markets. In addition you state that there are no examples of "Pure Free Markets" in the modern Western world which I agree. However you can't have your cake and eat it by also placing the blame on the "Free Market" which by your own words has not existed in pure sense.



In relation to the economy it is government action which has via its polices, mandates, regulations, etc created more unintended consequences from seeking to suppress market truths and realities then any other force at play in the economy of our nation. Which is to say that by the time government reacts to the unintended consequences of its actions it does so out of sync with the ever changing pace and speed of the economy.

I would of said your Fed took the trophy for holding back market truths and realities- like in the boom time before the GFC- having such a low interest rate, seems like they where a part of a bigger picture to me.
You would think Goldman & Sachs are great ethical and moral business people?

 

[gingermeggs]

Protectionism from impoverished nations with a standard of living below our own.

Revision of laws such that significant shareholders can be held accountable for the actions of their respective corporations.

Disallow any one person to be on more than one board of directors for a corporation.

Cap executive pay in cash and bonuses, but leave no limit on shares for bonuses. However, require executives to have owned their shares for 24 months before they are allowed to sell them. Do not allow contracts that will circumvent this measure such as using unsellable shares as collateral for loans.

Remove all tax breaks for stupid things like hiring a domestic worker, they do nothing and waste potential revenue.

Remove the capital gains tax. Tax all income as income regardless of the source.

Your country is responsible for much of the poverty in the world today, along with a few other European imperialist nations. They have impeded and defrauded most of the developing world- the hate isn't envy based, its very genuine and heart felt.

People who are citizens of your country, have been the most destructive for a peaceful world, they have subverted goodness from having a chance to shine in this world, what we have today is greedy and glutony from the most wealthy. The tragic irony of the reason for the creation of your republic, your country became worse then beast it fought off, maybe its a just a genetic trate of the anglo-saxons?
The son who left the family(British Imperialism).

You think changing laws will stop these sleazy POS scamming your country or other countries?
Have you ever wondered why older countries/cultures have military coops?
So far the USA has had(internally) 1 revolt, 1 civil war.
How many has France, German or England had?
Do you see what I see around the corner?
I think in another twenty years it won't be so "united", maybe it will be 4 countries by then, some of them won't be democratic. Just as it isn't today.

If you get no justice now, how will you get it tomorrow?
Writing laws! lol'